04/07/2024
Now my brain would like to p**s most of you off. Please keep in mind that I do my best to control the parts of my brain that enjoy p**sing people off. This has been an ongoing fight since my very first day of school. Most times I win but every once in a while....okay more than that but now and then the brain wins so here it is:
The fact of the matter is that there is an argument to be made that The Court has been overstepping for Decades. Forget about abortion or voting rights or racism for a moment. Consider two simple things Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule.
If you don't know about Miranda Rights then get off your parent's Facebook account and go back to bed, please. For those of you unfamiliar with the Exclusionary Rule, it goes like this:
The Constitution doesn't say ANYTHING AT ALL about excluding evidence because it was obtained illegally. Wait, hang on. I'm not saying...I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF USING ILLEGALLY OBTAI..would you PLEASE!!! (Sigh)
The Fourth Amendment exists because the framers of The Constitution had just fought a war against people who regularly and unjustly violated their privacies. The Fourth Amendment was meant to codify the idea that one will be secure in their possessions and property in this country absent REASONABLE suspicion (and in many cases a warrant).
But words on a page without oversight of ex*****on mean NOTHING. From the year the Constitution was ratified (1789) until 1914, The Court did NOTHING about the wanton violation of The Fourth Amendment. The Judicial Branch WAITED for its siblings to DO THEIR JOBS.
That means that for 125 years, American citizens had a hollow Fourth Amendment Right. Then Weeks v United States came along and The Court had seen enough. It stepped in. Since that ruling millions of Americans have been protected not by legislation but by judicial precedent.
Look I think it's right that The Fourth Amendment be upheld and that citizens of The United States of America be protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the police. But should that be the job of The Court or should we DEMAND that our elected officials get off their "...you know, you know whats..." (You either saw the speech or you didn't) and author legislation that protects the very basic ideals of freedom and Democracy?
Do I like this Court's rulings on matters of body autonomy and Presidential immunity and a lot of other stuff? No. But what if the message behind these rulings isn't "We don't care about the Republic." ? What if the message, the subtext of all of this is, "Things will always be this fragile until the centrists work together to elect a Congress that will write legislation to sustain and strengthen the forces of liberty, inclusivity and freedom." ?
I'm not saying that's what The Court is saying. I'm saying what IF all they're saying is, "Yeah, those are nice freedoms you have there but WE weren't supposed to be giving them to you...The Congress IS."
I'm just thinkin'
